DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on August 29, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claim 2 is cancelled; claims 5-8 are withdrawn; claims 9 and 10 are new; resulting in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the newly added limitation reciting “wherein the solvent of the treatment liquid is selected from the group consisting of water, a water-soluble organic solvent, and a combination thereof” is considered new matter that is not adequately supported by the specification.
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, the Applicant points to paragraphs [0074]-[0081] and [0114] of the as-filed specification for support for this new limitation. Paragraph [0074] discloses that the solvent contains water, and preferably further contains a water-soluble organic solvent. Based on this disclosure, the specification does not appear to envision an embodiment in which the solvent contains only a water-soluble organic solvent. Rather, according to paragraph [0074], the solvent is either (1) water or (2) water and a water-soluble organic solvent. In looking to the exemplary embodiments of the pretreatment liquid shown in Table 1, each of the pretreatment liquid compositions 1-1 through 1-9 contain both water and water-soluble organic solvents (i.e., ethylene glycol and propylene glycol).
Although the specification provides support for embodiments in which the solvent of the treatment liquid is selected from the group consisting of water and a combination of water and a water-soluble organic solvent, the specification does not adequately support the embodiment in which the solvent is a water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., not in combination with water).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected based on its dependency on claim 9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reciting “wherein the solvent of the treatment liquid is selected from the group consisting of water, a water-soluble organic solvent, and a combination thereof” is indefinite because the phrase “the treatment liquid” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. In particular, the claims set forth that the ink set comprises “at least one treatment liquid”. It is suggested to amend the limitation in claim 9 to --wherein the solvent of the at least one treatment liquid is selected from…-- in order to use consistent language throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected based on its dependency on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ellis (US 2007/0060670, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis teaches an aqueous inkjet ink comprising a polymerically dispersed titanium dioxide and a crosslinked polyurethane binder, wherein the inkjet ink has particular utility in printing on textiles (Abstract). The aqueous inkjet ink comprises an aqueous vehicle (solvent) having dispersed therein: (a) a titanium dioxide pigment dispersed with a polymeric dispersant (pigment-dispersing agent), and (b) a polymeric binder additive, which is different from the polymeric dispersant ([0011]-[0013]). Ellis teaches that non-white colored inks can also be made by utilizing one or more additional colorants in the white ink, such as cyan, magenta, yellow, black, orange, violet, green, red, and/or blue ([0016], [0141], [0145]).
Ellis teaches that the dispersant comprises a block copolymer, preferably of type ABA, wherein at least one of the blocks A or B is a hydrophobic adsorbing segment designed to adsorb onto the surface of the titanium dioxide pigment, and at least one of the blocks A or B is a hydrophilic stabilizing segment designed to provide a steric stabilization of the pigment particle against flocculation in a slurry composition [0055]. Ellis therefore discloses a pigment-dispersing agent which is an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B.
Ellis further teaches that the ink composition includes a crosslinking species (crosslinking agent) which can be added to affect the crosslinking at the time of ink formulation or later, e.g., at the time of printing or during post treatment of the printed material [0096]. Examples of crosslinking techniques involve the use of an isocyanate compound, an epoxy compound, or an oxazoline compound ([0098]-[0107]).
Ellis further teaches that the textile material can be pretreated with, e.g., an inorganic salt solution, prior to digitally printing [0153]. The pretreatment solution therefore corresponds to the claimed treatment liquid, while the non-white colored ink composition corresponds to the claimed inkjet ink.
The non-white colored ink composition containing both a white titanium dioxide pigment and a colored (i.e., cyan, magenta, yellow, black, orange, violet, green, red, and/or blue) pigment is interpreted as satisfying the limitations requiring that the inkjet ink includes a pigment, wherein the pigment in the inkjet ink consists of an orange pigment, a red pigment, … , a black pigment, or any combination thereof. It is noted that the limitation reciting “the inkjet ink includes a pigment” uses inclusive or open-ended language that does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03(I). Therefore, the claim encompasses inkjet inks which include a second pigment (e.g., a white titanium dioxide pigment) in addition to the presently-recited pigment which is limited to orange, red, magenta, violet, blue, cyan, green, yellow, and/or black pigments.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ellis teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, the pretreatment solution (treatment liquid) is an inorganic salt solution ([0153]), which does not include a crosslinking agent. Therefore, the limitation reciting “wherein, when the at least one treatment liquid includes the crosslinking agent, the at least one treatment liquid consists of the crosslinking agent, an aggregating agent, a solvent, a surfactant, a preservative, and optionally a pH adjuster” is anticipated because the optional conditional clause “when the at least one treatment liquid includes the crosslinking agent” is not met. Likewise, the subsequent limitations directed to the composition of the solvent of the treatment liquid are anticipated because the optional conditional clause “when the at least one treatment liquid includes the crosslinking agent” is not met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake (JP 2018-145366, machine translation previously provided) in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP 2023-088026, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Otake teaches an inkjet ink composition comprising a dispersion including a disperse dye or a pigment, water as the main medium (solvent) of the dispersion, and a block copolymer (pigment-dispersing agent) which is used to coat the disperse dye or pigment particles ([0018]-[0020], [0056], [0061], [0065]). Any known organic or inorganic pigments can be used as the pigment particles, such as black pigment and/or green pigment for a black ink composition ([0061]-[0062]). Otake teaches that when a fabric is used as the recording medium, a pretreatment step of applying a pretreatment liquid to the fabric may be provided before the ink composition is applied onto the recording medium ([0114], [0117]). Therefore, the ink composition and pretreatment liquid together correspond to the claimed ink set.
Otake further teaches that the block copolymer is formed from a polymerizable monomer A (hydrophobic block B) which forms a hydrophobic portion and a polymerizable monomer B (hydrophilic block A) which forms a hydrophilic portion ([0007], [0121]). Otake teaches that the polymerizable monomer A includes an isocyanate functional group ([0027], [0125]). Therefore, the inkjet ink includes a crosslinking agent, which includes an isocyanate compound.
Although Otake teaches that the hydrophobic portion of the block copolymer is oriented and coated on the surface of the dye or pigment particles, while the hydrophilic portion is oriented on the medium (water) side to form micelles, thus improving the dispersion stability of the pigment in the ink during long-term storage ([0121], [0123]), the reference does not specifically teach that the block copolymer is an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B.
However, in the analogous art of inkjet inks, Kobayashi et al. teaches an aqueous ink-jet ink comprising a pigment, a pigment dispersant, and an organic solvent, wherein the pigment dispersant may be a polymer dispersant which is a copolymer of a hydrophilic monomer and a hydrophobic monomer ([0012], [0072]). The copolymers are preferably selected from block copolymers, in particular ABA type block copolymers in which the hydrophilic block is A and the hydrophobic block is B ([0077], [0081]). Such block copolymers tend to form micelles in aqueous inks with the hydrophobic blocks being adsorbed to the pigment particles and the hydrophilic blocks facing outward so that the pigment can be more easily dispersed in the water-based ink ([0068], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink of Otake by using an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B as the pigment-dispersing block copolymer, as taught by Kobayashi et al., in order to ensure the pigment-dispersing agent can effectively adsorb onto the surface of the pigment particles via the hydrophobic block while also stabilizing the dispersed pigment in the aqueous medium via the hydrophilic blocks.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Otake in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, the isocyanate crosslinking agent is included in the inkjet ink composition, while the pretreatment liquid does not include a crosslinking agent. Therefore, the limitation reciting “wherein, when the at least one treatment liquid includes the crosslinking agent, the at least one treatment liquid consists of the crosslinking agent, an aggregating agent, a solvent, a surfactant, a preservative, and optionally a pH adjuster” is satisfied because the optional conditional clause “when the at least one treatment liquid includes the crosslinking agent” is not met. Likewise, the subsequent limitations directed to the solvent of the treatment liquid are satisfied because the optional conditional clause “when the at least one treatment liquid includes the crosslinking agent” is not met.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2023/0313451, newly cited) in view of Kobayashi et al. (JP 2023-088026, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada et al. teaches a recording method on a fabric using an ink jet printing apparatus, wherein the recording method includes an ink adhering step of adhering droplets of an ink composition (inkjet ink) containing a pigment and resin particles to the fabric, and a treatment solution adhering step of adhering droplets of treatment solution (treatment liquid) containing a crosslinking agent to the fabric (Abstract, Fig. 1).
The treatment solution is an auxiliary solution used together with the ink composition that aggregates or thickens components of the ink composition [0100]. The treatment solution contains a crosslinking agent, such as a polyamide epichlorohydrin resin (aziridine compound) or a blocked isocyanate resin ([0101], [0103]). The treatment solution further contains a polyvalent metal salt as a coagulant (aggregating agent), a solvent such as water and/or an organic solvent, a surfactant, an antiseptic agent/antifungal agent (preservative), and various other optional additives such as a pH regulator (optional pH adjuster) ([0110]-[0111], [0116], [0118], [0129], [0136]). The treatment solution therefore consists of the crosslinking agent, an aggregating agent, a solvent, a surfactant, a preservative, and optionally a pH adjuster as claimed.
The ink composition contains a pigment, such as an inorganic pigment or an organic pigment [0054]. Inorganic pigments can include black pigments, while organic pigments include cyan, magenta, yellow, orange, and green pigments, where the pigment can be used alone or in combination of two or more ([0055]-[0063]). The pigment is subjected to a surface treatment in order to enhance dispersibility in the ink composition, where the pigment and a dispersant (pigment-dispersing agent) are blended [0064]. The ink composition may further contain water and/or an organic solvent ([0082]-[0083]).
Although Yamada et al. teaches that the dispersant preferably has a hydrophobic portion and a hydrophilic portion in the molecular structure, such that the hydrophobic portion is adsorbed on a particle surface of the pigment while the hydrophilic portion is oriented on an aqueous medium side of the ink composition so that the pigment can be more stably contained in the ink composition ([0066]), the reference does not expressly teach that the dispersant is an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B.
However, in the analogous art of inkjet inks, Kobayashi et al. teaches an aqueous ink-jet ink comprising a pigment, a pigment dispersant, and an organic solvent, wherein the pigment dispersant may be a polymer dispersant which is a copolymer of a hydrophilic monomer and a hydrophobic monomer ([0012], [0072]). The copolymers are preferably selected from block copolymers, in particular ABA type block copolymers in which the hydrophilic block is A and the hydrophobic block is B ([0077], [0081]). Such block copolymers tend to form micelles in aqueous inks with the hydrophobic blocks being adsorbed to the pigment particles and the hydrophilic blocks facing outward so that the pigment can be more easily dispersed in the water-based ink ([0068], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inkjet ink of Yamada et al. by using an ABA-type block copolymer including two hydrophilic blocks A and one hydrophobic block B as the pigment-dispersing block copolymer, as taught by Kobayashi et al., in order to ensure the pigment-dispersing agent can effectively adsorb onto the surface of the pigment particles via the hydrophobic block while also stabilizing the dispersed pigment in the aqueous medium via the hydrophilic blocks.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Yamada et al. further teaches that a content of the crosslinking agent is preferably 1 to 10% by mass with respect to the total amount of the treatment solution, in order to balance print quality and ejection performance [0109]. Yamada et al. therefore teaches a content of the crosslinking agent in the treatment liquid which falls squarely within the claimed range of 0.1% by mass or more. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Yamada et al. further teaches that the crosslinking agent in the treatment solution causes a crosslinking reaction with a hydroxyl group contained in the resin particles in the ink composition ([0021], [0101], [0202]). Therefore, Yamada et al. teaches that the ink composition does not contain any cross-linker, such that a content of the crosslinking agent in the inkjet ink is 0% by mass, which falls within the claimed range of 3.0% by mass or less. Yamada et al. further teaches exemplary embodiments in which the ink composition does not contain any cross-linker (Table 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Yamada et al. teaches that the treatment solution may contain water and/or an organic solvent ([0116], [0118]). In particular, the organic solvent is preferably water-soluble, where examples of suitable solvents include polyhydric alcohols (polyol) ([0119], [0125]).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed August 29, 2025, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Ishida and Otake have been withdrawn, and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. based on Otake in view of Kobayashi et al. and Yamada et al. in view of Kobayashi et al. are presented in the office action above.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10 of the remarks filed August 29, 2025, with respect to the previous rejections based on Ellis have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the Applicant argues that Ellis does not anticipate the newly added limitation reciting “the pigment in the inkjet ink consists of an orange pigment, a red pigment, … , a yellow pigment, a black pigment, or any combination thereof” (i.e., an ink having no white pigment such as titanium dioxide pigment).
This argument is not persuasive. Ellis teaches that non-white colored inks can be made by utilizing one or more additional colorants in the white ink ([0016]), indicating that the non-white inkjet ink includes both titanium dioxide pigment and a colored pigment. As explained in the prior art rejections above, the current language of the claim utilizes open-ended language (i.e., “the inkjet ink includes a pigment”), such that the inkjet ink is open to including additional unrecited elements such as other pigments in addition to the presently-recited pigment. The new limitation requiring that the pigment in the inkjet ink “consists of” one of the claimed colored pigments is interpreted as limiting the types of pigment encompassed by the “pigment” set forth in line 4 of the claim. The non-white colored ink taught by Ellis therefore falls within the scope of the broad claim language, as the inkjet ink of the prior art includes a pigment which consists of one of the claimed colored pigments and further includes an additional white pigment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785